International Journal of Research in Advanced Engineering and Technology

International Journal of Research in Advanced Engineering and Technology

ISSN: 2455-0876; Impact Factor: RJIF 5.44
www.engineeringresearchjournal.com
Volume 3; Issue 1; January 2017; Page No. 28-31

Crack analysis of a thin walled pressure vessel by using FEA

1
Sandip Kumar, 2 Manoj Nikam, 3 Uvaraj Mane
1, 3
lecturer, Department Of Mechanical Engineering, Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Technology, Mumbai University, Navi
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2
Research Scholar, Department Of Mechanical Engineering, VJTI, Mumbai University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Abstract
Any crack on the surface of pressure vessel can lead to a fatal accident during operation, so it needs to be crack analysis. The
present work has done on a horizontal type of thin walled pressure vessel. It was designed to work for an internal pressure o f
around 150 bars and external pressure of one atmospheric. Its maximum working temperature is 70 0C. Hence procedure has been
developed to analyse the crack extension over the surface of pressure vessel due to operating parameters by using techniques like
SIFs and J-integral supported by the results of FEA.

Keywords: pressure vessel, SIFs, J-integral, and FEA

1. Introduction f(α) = 1 + 0.128 α - 0.288 α 2 + 1.523 α3

Industries have to deal with different toxic gases as well as =1.005870375
chemicals for different applications so they have pressure
vessel [1]. Generally, there is huge difference in internal and SIF “K”= 14.0947 MPa.mm0.5
external pressures of the pressure vessel. If pressure vessel Analytical Calculations for J-Integral (J)
fails or get explode, it may cause a huge damage to human life The J-Integral (J) of a crack is equal to the summation of the J-
and property [2]. The failure of the pressure vessel starts from a Integral of the elastic region (Jel) and J-Integral of the plastic
small crack may remain present during manufacturing region (Jpl). The Jel value of the material is equal to the stress
processes or due to material deficiency on the surface and due concentration factor ‘G’ and valueJpl can be calculated by
to different operating parameters. So it becomes mandatory for using Ramberg-Osgood relation.
the pressure vessel manufacturer and user to crack test the
J= Jel + Jpl……………………..………………….. (2)
pressure vessel before operation.
Jel=K2/E……………………………………………(3)
2. Experimental work Where,
Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. K= Stress Intensity Factor of the material for a given crack
Methods already published should be indicated by a reference, length.
only relevant modifications should be described. K= 14.0947, for a length of crack 5mm.
E= Modulus of elasticity of the material.
Analytical calculation of a rectangular plate with crack at E= 2 x 105,
the centre
Even in a circular tube with a crack having its length much Now by using the equation (3)
smaller than the diameter of the tube, the region around the
Jel = (14.09472) / 2 x 105
crack tip may be regarded as a flat plate [3]. So keeping it as
= 9.9×10-4MJ/mm2
the base, 2D rectangular plate is considered for the analysis. It
consists of a horizontal centre crack of length ‘2a’. Tensile Similarly, the relation of the J-integral for the plastic material
stress ‘σ’ is applied at the two ends. ‘B’ represents the is given in equation (4) below;
thickness of the plate and width of the plate is considered as
𝑝 𝑛+1
‘w’. JPL= 𝛼𝜎0 ∈ 𝑏𝑔1 ℎ1 ( ) …………………….. (4)
𝑝0

Analytical calculations for SIF (K) Where,

From the calculation point of view, the dimension of the plate α = Is a dimensional number
has taken as 200 × 50 × 5 mm. The force acting on the cross- α = [(2a/b)2 + 2(2a/b)1/2 - (2a/b) +1]
section is given by, a= length of the crack along the width
Stress = 5MPa, Cross sectional area = 50×5 mm2, Force for ε= σo /E
5mm thickness = 1250 N, Force for 1mm thickness = 250 N, w = width of the plate
Stress (σ) = 5MPa, Consider crack length (2a) = 5 mm b = (w-a)/2
Then, σo= Yield stress of the material
K = σ √πa f(α)……….......................................... (1) P= is the applied load per unit thickness of the plate.
α = a/w for 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.7 ε= Yield strain of the material
28
International Journal of Research in Advanced Engineering and Technology

𝜎0
P= is the applied load per unit thickness of the plate. P= 250 N/mm ∈= =0.00085
𝐸
b= length of uncracked ligament 50−5 𝑎 5
P0=2bσys. 𝑏= = 22.5𝑚𝑚. 𝑔1 = = = 0.1
2 𝑤 50
n = 4.3, Strain hardening constant for the given material 𝑝0 = 2𝑏𝜎𝑦𝑠
ℎ1 = 4.5
For the given material, = 2×22.5×170=7650 N/mm
Now by using the equation (4), the J PLcan be calculated for a 250 4.3+1
𝐽𝑝𝑙 = 2.09 × 170 × 0.00085 × 22.5 × 0.1 × 4.5( )
given crack lengths as below; 7650
For crack length ’a’=5mm. 𝐽𝑝𝑙 = 4.0839 × 10−8 MJ/mm2
𝜎0 = 170𝑀𝑃𝑎 Now the total J-integral from equation (2) by adding both Jel
n=4.3, α=2.09 and Jpl is given in the table 1 below for the given crack lengths.

Table 1: Results of total J-Integral

Crack length J-integral elastic, J-integral plastic, Total J-Integral,
Sr. No. SIF ‘K1’(MPa.mm0.5)
(mm) (MJ/mm2) (MJ/ mm2) (MJ/ mm2)
1 5 14.0947 9.9×10-4 0.0004084×10-4 9.9004084×10-4
2 6 15.4569 11.9×10-4 0.0005759×10-4 11.9005759×10-4
3 7 16.7136 13.9×10-4 0.0007920×10-4 13.900792×10-4
4 8 17.8872 14.0×10-4 0.0010768×10-4 14.0010768×10-4
5 9 18.9933 16.0×10-4 0.0014539×10-4 16.0014539×10-4
6 10 20.0433 20.1×10-4 0.0013835×10-4 20.1013835×10-4

Finite element Analysis of a 2D rectangular metal plate section line DX=0, DZ=0 and at bottom section line all DOF
having crack at center =1. A static structural analysis is selected for the current
ANSYS software is one of the most popular commercial analysis. So the pressure applied to the plate is as follows:
software is used for the Finite element analysis of the pressure A = pressure applied -5MPa, B = Pressure applied -5MPa.
vessel. The first step in the analysis is to create a geometrical
CAD model of the rectangular plate that is created in the Comparison of analytical & FEA results for a2D
Ansys workbench2016. rectangular plate (crack at the centre)
By the comparison of the results obtained by analytical
Material Properties calculations and by using FEA Ansys Workbench16.1, it is
At this point we have to define the material physical properties going to be proved that the method followed so far is correct
of the material used for the given problem. The material used and can be used for the crack analysis of any component.
for the manufacturing of pressure vessel is SA 240 GR 316 Refer fig. 1 and table 3.
and its properties are given in table 2 below.
Table 3: Percentage difference between analytical and FEA SIF
Table 2: Properties of material in ANSYS Workbench results
Sr. No. Properties Values Crack Analytical J- ANSYS J-
Percentage
1 Yield strength 170 N/mm2 length, Integral, Integral,
difference
2 Tensile strength 485 N/mm2 (mm) (MJ/mm2) (MJ/mm2)
3 Modules of elasticity 2 x 105 N/mm2 5 9.90×10-4 9.85×10-4 0.5
4 Elongation 40% 6 11.90×10-4 11.32×10-4 4.8
5 Hardness 217 Brinell, 97 Rockwell 7 13.90×10-4 13.28×10-4 4.4
6 Poison’s ratio 0.3 8 14.00×10-4 13.53×10-4 3.4
7 Density of material 7833Kg/m3 9 16.00×10-4 15.42×10-4 3.6
8 Element type Solid 10 20.10×10-4 19.30×10-4 3.9
9 Material SA 240 GR 316
Comparison of SIF results
Generation of crack
The fracture tool was selected to generate an automatic crack
at the new crack coordinates on the surface of the rectangular
plate. The dimensions have been selected arbitrary as used
during analytical calculations. Following are the dimensions
used for the crack at crack coordinate.
Coordinate system= crack location. Crack shape = semi elliptical
Major axis =5mm. Minor axis =1mm
Largest contour radius =0.5m Circumferential divisions =8
Mesh contours =6 Crack front divisions =15
After defining the crack length in the ANSYS Workbench16.1
the next step is to generate the mesh around the crack
geometry that is semi-elliptical in this case.

Loading and Boundary conditions

The boundary conditions are applied and those are at upper Fig 1: Comparison between analytical and FEA values of SIF
29
International Journal of Research in Advanced Engineering and Technology

After the comparison of both results, the percentage difference Generation of crack
between the results of two methods is very less and the A crack is characterized by its shape, crack front/tip, crack
maximum difference is only 1.72%. So the method followed discontinuity plane, crack normal, and crack direction [7]. A
in this project to analyse a crack present on the surface of a crack front in three dimensional analyses represents the line of
material plate is correct. The results obtained for the Stress separation of the discontinuous crack surface. The same is
Intensity Factor has a maximum value 20.0433MPa.mm0.5 for represented by a crack tip in three dimensional analyses. From
a length of 10 mm of crack. the past experiences of pressure vessel failures, the pressure
vessel got exploded suddenly around the nozzles or from any
Comparison of J-Integral results of the openings around the surface of the pressure vessel that
The percentage difference between the two can be neglected. indicate that the maximum stresses exerted around the
So it has been proved that the procedure followed to analyse a openings. Following are the dimensions used to generate a
crack present on a rectangular plate is correct. The same crack at crack coordinate, and they are same as used for the
techniques can be used to analyse any crack present on any analysis of the plate earlier and they are as follows below;
surface. Refer fig. 2 and table 4. Coordinate system= crack Crack shape = semi elliptical
location.
Table 4: The percentage difference between analytical and FEA Major axis =5mm. Minor axis =1mm
values of J-integral Largest contour radius =0.5mm Circumferential divisions =8
Mesh contours =6 Crack front divisions =15
S. Analytical J-Integral, ANSYS J-Integral, Percentage Loading and Boundary conditions on plate
No. (MJ/mm2) (MJ/mm2) difference A static structural analysis is chosen for the current analysis.
5 9.90×10-4 9.85×10-4 0.5 The value of the pressure applied is as follows:
6 11.90×10-4 11.32×10-4 4.8
A = pressure applied -5MPa, B = Pressure applied -5MPa. C=
7 13.90×10-4 13.28×10-4 4.4
Fixed Support.
8 14.00×10-4 13.53×10-4 3.4
9 16.00×10-4 15.42×10-4 3.6
10 20.10×10-4 19.30×10-4 3.9 3. Results and Discussion
The parameters which are required for the crack analysis of a
Calculation of Stress Intensity Factor and J-Integral of a thin walled pressure vessel are as follows;
thin walled pressure vessel by using FEA
Model or Geometry Equivalent Stress
Among the different softwares, Solid works is used to create On the basis of the equivalent Von Mises stress a designer can
CAD model of the pressure vessel, because it is user friendly predict that its design will fail, if the value of the equivalent
and easy to use. The assembly of the thin walled pressure with Von Mises stress obtained is more than the material
C-clamps is imported into the Ansys Workbench 16.1 for the toughness. As per the current Finite Element Analysis the
further analysis. value obtained for equivalent stress is 423.34 MPa. The
location of these stresses would be around the surface area of
the nozzle. (Fig.3)

Fig 2: Comparison between analytical and FEA values of J-Integral

Mesh the object created

The best possible method control is tetrahedron as per the Fig 3: Total equivalent Von-Mises stress
analysis and type of geometry is concerned. After the meshing
the CAD model of the pressure vessel looks the same. Table 5: Equivalent stresses for different crack lengths
Tetrahedrons (4 nodes) element has been adopted for the Sr. no. Crack lengths(mm) Equivalent stresses, (MPa)
analysis of the thin walled pressure vessel. The parameters 1 5 366.38
related to this are as follows; 2 6 393.34
Type of Element = Tetrahedron Min. element size = 4mm 3 7 413.30
Max. Element size = 20 mm. Relevance centre = fine 4 8 413.44
No. of Nodes= 83275 No. of Elements =39411 5 9 415.74
Mid side Node= dropped. 6 10 423.34
30
International Journal of Research in Advanced Engineering and Technology

As per the procedure of the analysis, the results obtained for
the first technique i.e. equivalent stresses are summarized in
the table 5.
Among the equivalent stresses for different crack lengths, the
maximum value obtained is 423.34MPa for the given crack
length of 10mm.The strength value of the same material with
young’s modulus is equal to 485MPa. It is found that ANSYS
WORKBENCH equivalent Von Mises stress is low as
compared to the strength of the material. This means that the
material can withstand stresses more than applied, so the
design is safe.
Stress Intensity Factor (K1)
The maximum value of stress intensity factor ‘K1’ in the
direction-x obtained by using finite element tool ANSYS
WORKBENCH 16.1 is 64.301MPamm00.5 for a given crack
length of 5mm. The results of the SIF ‘K1’ obtained for the
same boundary conditions and for different crack lengths are
summarized in the table 6 below. The maximum stress
intensity factor ‘K1’ from the table 11is 75.965MPamm0.5 for
a crack of length of around 10mm. The critical stress intensity
factor of the material is 220 965 MPamm0.5. So it has been
proved that the design is safe. Even if there is any crack
present on the surface then it will not further propagate.

Table 6: SIF, K1 for different crack lengths

Sr. No. Crack lengths(mm) SIF, K1 (MPa.mm0.5) SIF, KII, (MPa.mm0.5) SIF,K3 (MPa.mm0.5) J-Integral, (MJ/mm2)
1 5 64.301 23.832 36.142 0.027288
2 6 65.546 17.317 37.286 0.028559
3 7 69.727 14.028 39.642 0.032255
4 8 73.565 11.953 39.580 0.034750
5 9 74.874 10.526 39.868 0.035814
6 10 75.965 9.5584 41.006 0.037043

Stress Intensity Factor (K2)
The maximum value of stress intensity factor ‘K2’ in the
direction-y obtained by using finite element tool ANSYS
WORKBENCH 16.1 is 23.832965 MPamm0.5 for a given
crack length of 5mm. Among the different values obtained
during the analysis, the maximum value obtained is 23.832
965 MPamm0.5 for a given length of 5mm and When it is
compared this value of ‘K2’ obtained from finite element tool
with the ‘KIC’ i.e. critical stress intensity factor or material
toughness of the same material it comes out to be very less.
Stress Intensity Factor (K3)
The maximum value of stress intensity factor ‘K3’ in the
direction-z obtained by using finite element tool ANSYS
WORKBENCH 16.1 is 36. 965 MPamm0.5 for a given crack
length of 5mm. The stress intensity factor for z-direction is
given by ‘K3’ for different crack lengths when subjected to
same boundary conditions. Among the different values
obtained during the analysis, the maximum value obtained is
41.006MPamm0.5 for a given length of 10mm.
J-Integral (J)
The J-Integral for elastic material would be the same as that of
stress concentration factor ‘G’ but the J-Integral for plastic
material is a complicated concept. The value of J-Integral for
the thin walled pressure vessel with a crack on the surface
obtained by using finite element tool ANSYS WORKBENCH
16.1 is 0.027288 MJ/mm2 for a given length of crack 5mm.
The results obtained for J-Integral for different crack lengths
by using the same boundary conditions is given in table.
vessel-part II: the combined effect of pressure
andautofrettage” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
2001; 123-135.
2. Wang JA, Liu KC,”A new approach to evaluate fracture
toughness of structural materials”, Transactions of the
ASME,534/.2004, 126
3. Stoychev S, Kujawski D,” Crack tip stresses and their
effect on stress intensity factor for crack propagation”,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75, 2007.
4. Youli Ma,”Evaluating stress distributions and stress
intensity factors of a crack under mixed–mode conditions
in aluminum alloy”, International Conference on
Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation,
2010
5. NidhiDiwedi, Veerendra Kumar, AshwaniShrivastava,
Rajinareliya,”Burst pressure assessment of pressure vessel
using finite element analysis: A review” Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, 135/044502-1, 2013.
6. Rafael G. Savioli, Claudio Ruggieri, “Experimental study
on the cleavage fracture behaviour of an ASTM A285
grade C pressure vessel steel” Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, Vol.137/021206-1, 2015.
7. Christopher J. Evans, Timothy F.Miller,” Failure
Prediction of Pressure Vessels using Finite Element
Analysis” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
vol.137/051206-1, 2015.

4. Conclusion
The main conclusion of the study is clear that all the values
are within safe limit, which means that if there is any crack
present on the surface it will not propagate further. So we can
conclude that the design of the pressure vessel is safe for
operating conditions.

5. References
1. M.Perl, A. Nachum,”3-D stress intensity factors for
internal cracks in an overstrained cylindrical pressure
31